↓ Skip to main content

Understanding the Value of Individualized Information: The Impact of Poor Calibration or Discrimination in Outcome Prediction Models

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Decision Making, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding the Value of Individualized Information: The Impact of Poor Calibration or Discrimination in Outcome Prediction Models
Published in
Medical Decision Making, April 2017
DOI 10.1177/0272989x17704855
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Olchanski, Joshua T. Cohen, Peter J. Neumann, John B. Wong, David M. Kent

Abstract

Risk prediction models allow for the incorporation of individualized risk and clinical effectiveness information to identify patients for whom therapy is most appropriate and cost-effective. This approach has the potential to identify inefficient (or harmful) care in subgroups at different risks, even when the overall results appear favorable. Here, we explore the value of personalized risk information and the factors that influence it. Using an expected value of individualized care (EVIC) framework, which monetizes the value of customizing care, we developed a general approach to calculate individualized incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as a function of individual outcome risk. For a case study (tPA v. streptokinase to treat possible myocardial infarction), we used a simulation to explore how an EVIC is influenced by population outcome prevalence, model discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. In our simulations, for well-calibrated models, which do not over- or underestimate predicted v. observed event risk, the EVIC ranged from $0 to $700 per person, with better discrimination (higher c-statistic values) yielding progressively higher EVIC values. For miscalibrated models, the EVIC ranged from -$600 to $600 in different simulated scenarios. The EVIC values decreased as discrimination improved from a c-statistic of 0.5 to 0.6, before becoming positive as the c-statistic reached values of ~0.8. Individualizing treatment decisions using risk may produce substantial value but also has the potential for net harm. Good model calibration ensures a non-negative EVIC. Improvements in discrimination generally increase the EVIC; however, when models are miscalibrated, greater discriminating power can paradoxically reduce the EVIC under some circumstances.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Other 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Psychology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,453,139
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Medical Decision Making
#1,127
of 1,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,673
of 310,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Decision Making
#23
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.